Legal rights are arbitrarily defined by a bunch of politicians.
What is important here is what Science and medical professions have to say regarding what is life and what is a human being.
Try to read the following without a preconcieved goal of "pro choice" and anti "government interference". We (you and me) are both pro choice, but I agree with the following articles regarding when life begins.

(07-02-2014 08:47 PM)Chas Wrote: "As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, ..."
No, that is absurd. A single cell is not "a whole human being", it is only potentially so.

Regardless, I have not staked out a position on the beginning of life, only on personhood, which is a legal and ethical determination, informed by science.

Some related quotes from the articles I linked to

Quote:The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question�not a scientific question. I will not go into great detail here,39 but "personhood" begins when the human being begins�at fertilization. But since many of the current popular "personhood" claims in bioethics are also based on mythological science, it would be useful to just look very briefly at these philosophical (or sometimes, theological) arguments simply for scientific accuracy as well.

Philosophically, virtually any claim for so-called "delayed personhood"�that is, "personhood" does not start until some point after fertilization�involves the theoretical disaster of accepting that the idea or concept of a mind/body split has any correlate or reflects the real world. Historically this problem was simply the consequence of wrong-headed thinking about reality, and was/is totally indefensible. It was abandoned with great embarrassment after Plato�s time (even by Plato himself in his Parmenides!), but unfortunately resurfaces from time to time, e.g., as with Descartes in his Meditations, and now again with contemporary bioethics.40 And as in the question of when a human being begins, if the science used to ground these philosophical "personhood" arguments is incorrect, the conclusions of these arguments (which are based on that incorrect science) are also incorrect and invalid

Quote:Myth 13: "A human person begins with �brain birth,� the formation of the primitive nerve net, or the formation of the cortex�all physiological structures necessary to support thinking and feeling."

Fact 13: Such claims are all pure mental speculation, the product of imposing philosophical (or theological) concepts on the scientific data, and have no scientific evidence to back them up. As the well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between "brain death" and "brain birth" is scientifically invalid. "Brain death" is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. "Brain birth" is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed. Jones continues that the alleged symmetry is not as strong as is sometimes assumed, and that it has yet to be provided with a firm biological base.

Quote:At this point in the debate, some try and introduce a separate distinction and question of “personhood.” Aside from this usually being a convoluted way to try and create classes of human beings and that it doesn’t hold up to any consistently logical scrutiny, it’s also not at all a scientific argument. It’s a philosophical one. So it is totally irrelevant to the scientific question of when human life begins. - See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when...1129S.dpuf

Quote: “That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George

(07-02-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote: If mothers killing their unborn does not make society unstable then it is not a matter for the government to interfere.

exactly. Since this doesn't make society unstable. What the f is your problem?

Huh?
I am discussing whether a fetus is alive, is human and is a person.
I am not arguing whether abortion should be allowed or not.

Many people think that abortion should be allowed because they define a fetus as not alive, non human or non person. I am just challenging these justifications and backing up my challenge with science.

(09-02-2014 02:44 AM)Stevil Wrote: Huh?
I am discussing whether a fetus is alive, is human and is a person.
I am not arguing whether abortion should be allowed or not.

Many people think that abortion should be allowed because they define a fetus as not alive, non human or non person. I am just challenging these justifications and backing up my challenge with science.

Does it upset you that I am trying to challenge these justifications?

In the context of what people have been saying (or at least what I've read and what I've been saying), it's not an issue of whether or not the fetus is alive or has human DNA; it's a matter of whether or not it gets afforded the same rights as a human after birth.

(06-02-2014 05:43 PM)Question Wrote: If a woman has a miscarriage, would that be accidental murder?

Depends on if you're doubling down and going full "life begins at conception".

If the embryo that is created is a human with full rights, and you knowingly put them in an environment where they are likely to die (something like 50% - 83% between conception and birth!), then it'd be reckless endangerment just to conceive. If it actually dies, then it's probably manslaughter or depraved indifference, depending on motive.

This is why no one actually believes life begins at conception; it's a popular argument they like to bust out to help win abortion debates, make everything feel real simple and black-and-white, and then put back on the shelf before it becomes inconvenient.

Note all the parts in there about the fetus having rights makes procreation very inconvenient. This is why people are arguing the point with you. You're talking past them. You are arguing a point no one else is, aside form a literal, out-of-context reading of a snipped of one of my posts.

(09-02-2014 09:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: In the context of what people have been saying (or at least what I've read and what I've been saying), it's not an issue of whether or not the fetus is alive or has human DNA; it's a matter of whether or not it gets afforded the same rights as a human after birth.

I understand what the end goal is and I whole heartedly agree with the end goal. It's not the government's place to interfere with the mother's choice.
What I disagree with is the justifications that many people are using in order to get to that end goal. When they are literally saying that it is not alive, that it is not a human, that it is a parasite or tumor or clump of cells then they are leaving science behind and are going into a philosophical world of delusion as it is empirically demonstrable that the fetus is alive, human and a seperate (albiet dependant) entity from the mother.
Those that take the "personhood" argument are also leaving science behind. "Person" or "personhood" is not a scientific term. They are trying to conflate this term with something else (potentially scientific) e.g. development of nervous system or consciousness. Then they are drawing a line in the sand and saying that the "Person" is a sacred entity, requiring legal protection dispite what the mother wants to do. At this point they are saying that they want the government to interfere, to then take the choice away from the mother.
I'd like to know how this is any different (in principle) to what Catholics are wanting to do. Instead of the point where the nervous system is developed the Catholics choose the point of fertilisation and then say that is the "person" and that is sacred and requires legal protection despite what the mother wants to do.
These are equivalent positions, both are wanting to interfer, the only difference is the arbitrary choice of when they want government to interfere.

(09-02-2014 09:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: If the embryo that is created is a human with full rights, and you knowingly put them in an environment where they are likely to die (something like 50% - 83% between conception and birth!), then it'd be reckless endangerment just to conceive. If it actually dies, then it's probably manslaughter or depraved indifference, depending on motive.

Everyone dies, everyone (100%).
That doesn't mean that parents ought to be held culpable knowing that they are creating offspring that will eventually die.
It does not equate to reckless endangerment. If someone's child dies before they do we do not throw the parents into prison for manslaughter just because it was them that made the offspring even if we could prove that the parent knew that someday their offspring would eventually die.

(09-02-2014 09:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: This is why no one actually believes life begins at conception;

I'm sorry, but even in context, I accept that life begins at conception.

(09-02-2014 09:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: it's a popular argument they like to bust out to help win abortion debates

I don't try to win abortion debates. I don't hold human life to be sacred, I don't feel that it is the government's place to save everyone from death.

(09-02-2014 09:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: Note all the parts in there about the fetus having rights makes procreation very inconvenient.

You are the only one that has thought that procreation could equate to legal manslaughter if the unborn is considered a living human person.
There was a time, not too long ago where it was illegal to perform abortions. In those times mother's did not go to prison for miscarrying.

(09-02-2014 09:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: This is why people are arguing the point with you. You're talking past them. You are arguing a point no one else is, aside form a literal, out-of-context reading of a snipped of one of my posts.

I actually didn't focus on your posts other than to say that I accept life begins at conception. My other comments are addressing what others are directly saying about it being not alive, non human, not a person, a parasite, a tumor. About personhood being scientific.

(09-02-2014 09:14 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: If the embryo that is created is a human with full rights, and you knowingly put them in an environment where they are likely to die (something like 50% - 83% between conception and birth!), then it'd be reckless endangerment just to conceive. If it actually dies, then it's probably manslaughter or depraved indifference, depending on motive.

Everyone dies, everyone (100%).
That doesn't mean that parents ought to be held culpable knowing that they are creating offspring that will eventually die.
It does not equate to reckless endangerment. If someone's child dies before they do we do not throw the parents into prison for manslaughter just because it was them that made the offspring even if we could prove that the parent knew that someday their offspring would eventually die.

I don't feel it's reckless endangerment either, but that's because I'm not giving the fetus the same rights I would to a human after they were born. It has nothing to do with me not considering it "alive" or "human".

And, yes, if you are giving the fetus full rights, procreation would be reckless endangerment. We know before we conceive that the chances of death of really high, and the parents are willingly putting the fetus in a situation where it has a greater chance to die than not to die. If you did any of those things to a person after birth, it'd be reckless endangerment. If the parents took their kid out of the hospital after birth and laid him/her on the freeway, that would be reckless endangerment. You don't get to say that 100% of people die, so there's nothing wrong with laying kids on freeways.